Revising the Multi-Stellar LS border

[DontTalkDT]

Continued from here.
So, our border between stellar and multi-stellar LS is based on the biggest star we could find when we decided the value.
The problem is that the star in question, R136a1, got new measurements and it seems the 315 solar masses end that we use doesn't seem like the preferred estimation anymore. Wikipedia at least has changed its mass to a lower value. So we need to update the the border for on LS page as well.

Now, we could simply look at wikipedia's list of the most massive stars and pick the currently highest ranked one as the border again. However, to quote myself from when we originally decided the current value:

After thinking more about the idea of using the biggest known star/galaxy as border, I'm also not so sure about it anymore.

The idea is fine in the present, but science keeps progressing. What the mass of the largest known galaxy/star is can easily change by the scientists pointing their best telescopes at a new part of the nightsky and finding a bigger one. Or using a better tool/method to predict the mass.

As wikipedia notes, many of these mass values are already contested today.

While new facts, estimates and measurements are something that can influence anything in science, we are building our standard on particularly instable foundation here, in my opinion.

Hence, my suggestion is to look for a border that is less likely to be updated in the next few years.

Wikipedia mentions theoretical mass limits of 200 or 300 solar masses. So my suggestion would be to maybe use one of those as the border between Stellar and Multi-Stellar. I'm open to other suggestions as well, though.

 

[Qawsedf234]

200 Solar Masses is probably a safer bet than 300 in my view. Anything larger you get into contested things like 10^6 Quasars or potentially incorrectly calculated sizes.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Mhhh.... maybe. Then again, wikipedia says regarding the 200 solar masses limit:

Rare ultramassive stars that exceed this limit – for example in the R136 star cluster – might be explained by the following proposal: Some of the pairs of massive stars in close orbit in young, unstable multiple-star systems must occasionally collide and merge where certain unusual circumstances hold that make a collision possible.

So in some rare cases of star collisions more massive stars could apparently exist?

 

[Qawsedf234]

So in some rare cases of star collisions more massive stars could apparently exist?

Plenty of stuff can exceed the 200 Solar Mass limit. Quasars for example can get to 10^6 or greater Solar Mass and that's the current working theory for how Supermassive Black Holes come into existence.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, sure, but I would take black holes, which Quasars essentially are in my understanding, as an exception when we consider borders. Black Holes tend to be an exception to nearly everything.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I guess my point is that anything over 200 Solar Mass tends to be weird exceptions rather than hard facts. So it may be better to just place the lower limit there rather than use a flexible number that's prone to change.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Hmmm... personally I think 300 Solar masses could work too, but I'm fine with either.
@Amelia_Lonelyheart
@Executor_N0
@Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan
@Mr._Bambu
@Therefir
@DMUA
@Damage3245
@DemonGodMitchAubin
@Jasonsith
@Wokistan
@Migue79
@Armorchompy
@Psychomaster35
@CloverDragon03
@KLOL506
@Dark-Carioca
@AbaddonTheDisappointment
@Aguywhodoesthings
What do you think?

 

[Damage3245]

Qaws' viewpoint seems fine to me.

 

[Psychomaster35]

I’d be fine with either 200 or 300 solar masses as well

 

[Flashlight237]

I mean, I looked around and, there are two stars still heavier than R136 over there.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAT99-98

Westerhout 49-2 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The larger of the two's mass comes with much uncertainly while the smaller of the two doesn't seem to have too much uncertainty by comparison.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm fine with whatever goes, with a slight preference for 200 solar masses.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I mean, I looked around and, there are two stars still heavier than R136 over there.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAT99-98

Westerhout 49-2 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The larger of the two's mass comes with much uncertainly while the smaller of the two doesn't seem to have too much uncertainty by comparison.

The second one has a huge error bar that could easily get it below 200.

The leaves the first one. Who knows if it will hold up. One could argue that due to that one 300 is better, but then it was said that such stars are rare exceptions.

 

[Aguywhodoesthings]

I'm fine with 200 solar masses

 

[Flashlight237]

The second one has a huge error bar that could easily get it below 200.

The leaves the first one. Who knows if it will hold up. One could argue that due to that one 300 is better, but then it was said that such stars are rare exceptions.

Mmm, it's a little closer to 200 than 300 if we were to take it to the nearest 100.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'm fine with 200 solar masses

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

200 solar masses seems fine to me

 

[DontTalkDT]

Seems like 200 solar masses or 3.97694x10^32 kg.

 

[Migue79]

Yeah. I agree with 200 solar masses.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Did the edit. Tell me if I overlooked something.

 

[KLOL506]

Checked the conversions myself, looks good. Sorry I couldn't post this back then because of dumbass blackouts.